OBJECTIVES: To assess candidates' and interviewers' perceptions of the use of a multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection of senior house officers (SHOs) to a UK regional paediatric training programme. METHODS: Both candidates and interviewers completed anonymous questionnaires (comprising 16 and 25 questions, respectively). Demographic data were recorded for both groups. Data were analysed by frequencies; using Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis tests for comparisons; and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency within the data. RESULTS: Both candidates and interviewers were positive about the fairness of the MMI (mean scores of 4.0 and 4.4, respectively). The majority of candidates (83%) had not been to this type of interview before. Gender, age and previous experience of MMIs did not account for differences in candidate responses (P > 0.05). A total of 86% of candidates were international medical graduates who preferred the format more than UK graduates did (P = 0.01). Interviewers were mainly experienced consultants who agreed that the multi-station format was better than the traditional interview (mean score 4.8) and represented a reliable process (mean score 4.4). Interviewers were concerned about the range of competencies covered and the subsequent performance of candidates in post (mean scores 3.6 and 3.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both candidates and interviewers agreed that the MMI format was reliable, fair and asked appropriate, easy-to-understand questions. In high-stakes interviews such as for specialty training in Modernising Medical Careers programmes, it is vital that all concerned have confidence in the selection process.
OBJECTIVES: To assess candidates' and interviewers' perceptions of the use of a multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection of senior house officers (SHOs) to a UK regional paediatric training programme. METHODS: Both candidates and interviewers completed anonymous questionnaires (comprising 16 and 25 questions, respectively). Demographic data were recorded for both groups. Data were analysed by frequencies; using Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis tests for comparisons; and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency within the data. RESULTS: Both candidates and interviewers were positive about the fairness of the MMI (mean scores of 4.0 and 4.4, respectively). The majority of candidates (83%) had not been to this type of interview before. Gender, age and previous experience of MMIs did not account for differences in candidate responses (P > 0.05). A total of 86% of candidates were international medical graduates who preferred the format more than UK graduates did (P = 0.01). Interviewers were mainly experienced consultants who agreed that the multi-station format was better than the traditional interview (mean score 4.8) and represented a reliable process (mean score 4.4). Interviewers were concerned about the range of competencies covered and the subsequent performance of candidates in post (mean scores 3.6 and 3.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both candidates and interviewers agreed that the MMI format was reliable, fair and asked appropriate, easy-to-understand questions. In high-stakes interviews such as for specialty training in Modernising Medical Careers programmes, it is vital that all concerned have confidence in the selection process.
Authors: Robin L Corelli; Michael A Muchnik; Ryan J Beechinor; Gary Fong; Eleanor M Vogt; Jennifer M Cocohoba; Candy Tsourounis; Karen Suchanek Hudmon Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Julian Diaz Fraga; Adetokunbo Oluwasanjo; Thomas Wasser; Anthony Donato; Richard Alweis Journal: J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect Date: 2013-12-17
Authors: Maureen E Kelly; Jon Dowell; Adrian Husbands; John Newell; Siun O'Flynn; Thomas Kropmans; Fidelma P Dunne; Andrew W Murphy Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 2.463